{"id":162379,"date":"2009-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-15T00:32:33","modified_gmt":"2017-07-14T19:02:33","slug":"shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shri Hemant Goswami vs Department Of Personnel & … on 29 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission<\/div>\n
Shri Hemant Goswami vs Department Of Personnel & … on 29 September, 2009<\/div>\n
                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                          Complaint No.CIC\/WB\/C\/2008\/00459 dated 1.5.2008\n                             Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18\n\n\nAppellant        -          Shri Hemant Goswami\nRespondent           -      Department of Personnel & Training.(DoPT)\n                                   Decision announced: 29.9.2009\n\n\nFacts<\/pre>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
         By an application of 11.3.08 Shri Hemant Goswami of Hotel Shivalik View,
\nChandigarh made an application to the CPIO Shri Ravinder Kumar, Under
\nSecretary, SM-II, DOPT seeking the following information:\n<\/p>\n
         “1.   Provide reasons as to why it was decided that Rs. 10\/- must
\n               be charged as fee for submitting an RTI application and why
\n               cost of the material under the “Right to Information
\n               (Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rules, 2005 was kept much
\n               higher than the actual cost.<\/p>\n
         2.    Provide reasons for justification of charging Rs. 2\/- as per
\n               copy charges under the RTI Act whereas the actual
\n               photocopying cost is less than 40 paise per copy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         3.    Provide reasons for the decision to charge and keep a high
\n               cost of obtaining documents \/ undertaking inspection \/
\n               obtaining electronic information under the RTI (Regulation of
\n               Fee & Costs_ Rules, 2005 (with subsequent amendment) at
\n               the following at the rates:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               h.      Reasons for keeping Rs. 2\/- as the charges for
\n                       obtaining copy of each document as mentioned in
\n                       Rule 4(a) and 5(b)
\n               i.      The reasons for deciding that charging Rs. 5\/- for
\n                       each hour after the first hour is a reasonable fee.
\n               j.      The reason for keeping Rs. 50\/- as the fee for
\n                       obtaining information in a Diskette in the form of a
\n                       CD\/DVD\/Floppy as mentioned in Rule 5(a).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         Part 2:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         1.      Provide a copy of all documents \/ notings \/ records \/
\n                 communication at the time of drafting of the Rules and at the
\n                 time of enactment of the RTI Act (and for all period
\n                 proceeding it) which in any way justifies charging of an
\n                 application fee of Rs. 10\/- as the RTI application fee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
       Provide the complete calculation arrived at for justifying Rs.
\n     10\/- as the application fee for obtaining information under the
\n     RTI Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.   Provide a copy of all documents \/ calculations \/
\n     correspondence \/ advise \/ notes \/ records which in any way
\n     justifies \/ provides for \/ wherein calculations are made for
\n     charging of:\n<\/p>\n
     a)      Rs. 2\/- as the charges for obtaining copy of each
\n             document as mentioned in Rule 4(a) and 5(b)\n<\/p>\n
     b)      Charging Rs. 5\/- for each hour after the first hour is a
\n             reasonable fee.\n<\/p>\n
     c)      Rs. 50\/- as the fee for obtaining information in a
\n             Diskette in the form of a CD\/DVD\/Floppy as
\n             mentioned in Rule 5(a).\n<\/p>\n
     d)       Any other charges which are levied under the
\n             provisions of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
3.   Provide a certified copy of all documents generated by and
\n     the complete report of “Parliamentary Standing Committee
\n     on Public Grievances and Personnel” headed by Dr. E. M.
\n     Sundaresan Natchiappan.\n<\/p>\n
4.   Provide information if there is a proposal to scrap the RTI fee
\n     of Rs. 10\/- altogether\n<\/p>\n
5.   Provide information if there is a proposal to charge or reduce
\n     the copying charges:\n<\/p>\n
     a)       Provide information on all proposals to reduce the
\n             copying charges to actual charges which may be 50
\n             paise or Rs. One or less than it, for obtaining a copy
\n             of a document.\n<\/p>\n
     b)       Provide certified copy of all documents wherein any
\n             change in RTI fee and \/ or any other charges for
\n             obtaining documents \/ information under it is
\n             proposed.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Provide information what fee for seeking any documents is
\n     payable when the information sought is exclusively in
\n     electronic format by way of reply through Emails and
\n     additional documents are sought as electronic attachment
\n     only through an official e-mail address (RTI Act provides
\n     under Sec. 6(1) that the information may be sought in
\n     electronic form and further Sec.7 (9) provides that the reply
\n     may be given in the same form in which it is sought.)\n<\/p>\n
7.   Provide a certified copy of complete report of all and any
\n     committee constituted for the purpose of effective
\n     implementation of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
       8.     Provide a certified copy of all and any recommendation by
\n             any official \/ authority \/ person for the purpose of amending
\n             the RTI Act in any way.\n<\/p>\n
      9.     Provide a list of all documents of the department available in
\n             the manner as prescribed in Sec. 4(1) (a) and Sec. 4(4) of
\n             the RTI Act. Please provide the complete location on the
\n             internet from where the said information can be culled down.\n<\/p>\n
      10.    The undersigned would, at his discretion, also like to inspect
\n             all the records (both electronic and paper records),
\n             documents \/ letters, communication, notes, books of
\n             accounts, voucher, etc. which pertains to the enactment of
\n             the RTI Act, the promulgation of rules made under it, all
\n             recommendations and concerns and all other documents \/
\n             information \/ record relied by your department and \/ or on the
\n             basis of which the information to the above-mentioned
\n             request is supplied \/ to be provided. Kindly provide the
\n             working hours of your office and the name, contact details
\n             and exact location of the record officer \/ other officials in
\n             whose custody the said records are available and can be
\n             inspected:\n<\/p>\n
             a)     The undersigned requests you to provide extracts,
\n                    copy of documents and vouchers, certified copies,
\n                    electronic documents, e-mail and relevant portion \/
\n                    noting of any and all the documents required by the
\n                    applicant after the inspection by the applicant (and \/
\n                    or his representative) or otherwise.        During the
\n                    inspection, the applicant may be allowed to take notes
\n                    from the documents and seek copies of all or any of
\n                    the documents available in paper or electronic
\n                    format.”\n<\/p>\n
      To this Shri Hemant Goswami received a reply from Shri Ravinder Kumar
\ndated 14.3.08 informing Shri Goswami “that the subject matter of your letter
\npertains to Ms. Zoya C.B., Under Secretary and Central Public information
\nOfficer, Department of Personnel & Training. Accordingly in terms of para 6(3) of
\nthe Right to Information Act, 2005, your application is being transferred to Ms.
\nZoya C.B., Under Secretary and Central Public Information Officer, Department
\nof Personnel & Training for further necessary action.” Against this Shri Goswami
\nhas moved a complaint before us with the following plea:\n<\/p>\n
      I.     Direct the Department of Personnel and Training,
\n             Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
\n             to provide complete information as requested in the<\/p>\n
                                       3<\/span>
\n              accompanying annexed RTI application immediately
\n             without any delay.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      II.    Instruct respondent 1 and 2 to follow the provisions of
\n             Section 4 (1) (a), 4 (1) (c), 4 (2), 4 (3) and 4 (4) of the
\n             Right to Information Act and comply with all provisions
\n             in a time bound manner. A compliance report be sought
\n             from them.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      III.   Since the records of the Departments of Personnel and
\n             Training, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and
\n             Pensions, are not available online and\/ or maintained as
\n             provided under section 4 (1) (a)\/ and the facts\/ reason
\n             for taking all the important decisions are not provided
\n             under section 4 (1) (c) & (d) of the RTI Act so the Home
\n             Department be asked to directed to do so in a time
\n             bound manner.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      IV.    Take suitable action against the responsible officials\/
\n             persons who have failed to provide information and who
\n             failed to comply with the provisions of section 4 of the
\n             RTI Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      V.     Penalty and fine be imposed on the CPIO of respondent
\n             no 1 and 2 and the public authorities involved for falling
\n             to provide the requested information and for creating
\n             unnecessary barriers in the implementation of the RTI
\n             Act due to which the applicant\/ complainant could not
\n             get information.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      VI.    That suitable directions be given to the departmental
\n             heads for taking note of the facts and mention the same
\n             in the records of the said officials besides initiating
\n             departmental inquiry.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      VII.   That the complainant be compensated for being put to
\n             inconvenience, for causing damages and injury for
\n             wrongful loss, mental agony cost of this complaint and
\n             the cost of pursuing it. The complainant at this stage
\n             assesses the same to be Rs. 3, 00,000 (Three lakh), as
\n             on date, leaving aside the other damages.’<\/p>\n
      Upon this we had issued a complaint notice dated 25.8.09. However, in
\nthe meantime in response to our orders dated 24.8.09 in appeal No.
\nCIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/00807 Shri Hemant Goswami vs. DOPT, Ms. Anuradha
\nChagti, Appellate Authority and Dy. Secy., RTI DoPT has provided appellant Shri
\nHemant Goswami the following information:\n<\/p>\n
      “2.    The applicant was provided the following information vide CPIO’s
\n             letter of even number dated 31.3.2008:-\n<\/p>\n
                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
 Provision of Section 4 (1) (c) & (d)<\/p>\n
I      Proviso under section 7 (5) of the RTI Act mandates that fee
\n       prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 6 and sub-sections (1)
\n       and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall
\n       charged from the persons who are below poverty line as may be
\n       determined by the appropriate Government. The fee of Rs. 10\/- for
\n       RTI application as prescribed under the Right to Information
\n       (Regulation of Fee and Cost) rules, 2005 has been prescribed
\n       keeping the above provisions in the Act in view.
\nII     Charges prescribed for photocopy are also nominal, reasonable
\n       and include cost of paper. These charges have been decided on
\n       the basis of provisions contained in various such rules pertaining to
\n       other states.\n<\/p>\n
III    The charges prescribed for inspection and taking copies of the
\n       document under the RTI Act are reasonable and have been
\n       decided keeping in view the provisions contained in such rules
\n       pertaining to other states. No fee is being charged for the persons
\n       below poverty line.\n<\/p>\n
Provisions of section 6 of the RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n
1. The information is contained in 94 pages (correspondence\/
\n   enclosures in file) and can be obtained after depositing Rs.
\n   188\/- by way of DD, Banker’s Cheque or IPO in favour of AO,
\n   DOPT or cash at the information Facilitation Counter of this
\n   Ministry. The view of the DOPT, as reflected on the website, is
\n   that ‘file noting’ does not form the part of information under the
\n   RTI Act and that it is not to be disclosed. However, the CIC in
\n   several cases has held that the ‘file noting’ is an integral part of
\n   a file and should be disclosed. The DOPT is in the process of
\n   examining the matter. Decision in the matter has not been
\n   taken so far.\n<\/p>\n
2. Reply has been given in para I and II above.\n<\/p>\n
3. You are welcome to inspect the file relating to subject matter, as
\n   also desired by you. The documents as stated at para 1 above
\n   can be given on payment of requisite fee.\n<\/p>\n
4. The report contained in 67 pages and a fee of Rs. 134\/- is
\n   required to be deposited for purpose.\n<\/p>\n
5.     There is no proposal to scrap the Right to Information
\n       (Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rules, 2005.\n<\/p>\n
6.     At present there is no proposal to change or reduce the
\n       copying charges.\n<\/p>\n
7.     Section 7 (9) of the Act provides that an information shall
\n       ordinarily be provided in the form in which hit is sought
\n       unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the<\/p>\n
                                   5<\/span>
\n       public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or
\n      preservation of the record in question. The fee charged is as
\n      prescribed and through modes of payments viz IPO,
\n      Demand Draft or Cash (in person) under the Right to
\n      Information (Regulation of FEE & Cost) Rules, 2005.\n<\/p>\n
8.    There is a no such committee formed.\n<\/p>\n
9.     The Second Administrative Reforms Commission in its
\n      report has made recommends with regard to RTI Act. The
\n      report contained in 120 pages and copy of the same can be
\n      given on payment of RS. 240\/- @ Rs. 2\/- per page.
\n      Alternatively, the report is available on the website of this
\n      ministry i.e. www.permin.nic and can be downloaded from
\n      the website under Department of Administrative Reforms
\n      and Public Grievances.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Proactive disclosure is available on the website of this
\n      Ministry as cited above.\n<\/p>\n
11.   You are welcome to have inspection of records available in
\n      this section and permissible under the RTI Act, 2005 in any
\n      day with prior intimation to the undersigned at the following
\n      address during working hours i.e. 9.00 am to 5.30 pm:-
\n      D. C. Sharma, Section Officer (IR), R. No. 215-A-II, North
\n      Block, New Delhi. Tele: 23093022.\n<\/p>\n
The copies of the documents\/ extracts can be given in the form
\nrequired on demand and payment of requisite fee under the
\nprescribed rules.\n<\/p>\n
3.     This division did not receive the appeal dated 22.5.2009
\n       from Shri Hemant Goswami. CIC vide its decision dated
\n       24.8.2009 in appeal No. CIC\/WB\/A\/2009\/000807 dated
\n       20.8.2009 in the complaint filed by Shri Hemant Goswami
\n       has remanded the appeal dated 22.5.2008 of the compliant
\n       to the undersigned for disposal of the same within ten
\n       working days from the date of receipt the decision (date of
\n       receipt is 31.8.2009). CIC has also rejected the pleas of the
\n       complainant for delay in submission of reply by the CPIO.\n<\/p>\n
4.     The following information is given with reference to the
\n       issues raised in the appeal dated 22.5.2009 of complainant;-
\n Part I to III- Certified copies of the file notings from the file No.
\n       34012\/8(S)\/2005-Estt(B) in which the Right to Information
\n       (Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rules, 2005 have been framed
\n       are enclosed. The same contain the basis of framing of
\n       rules under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
1 to 4: CIC has accepted that the CPIO has provided information
\n       within the stipulated time. You are aware of the provisions of
\n       the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 and CPIO<\/p>\n
                                  6<\/span>
\n               has already intimated the charges indicating the number of
\n              pages vis-\u00e0-vis total cost of information.\n<\/p>\n
       6.     CPIO has already provided the information with reference to
\n              your query. The issue raised in your appeal is not related
\n              with the query made.\n<\/p>\n
       7.     CPIO has already provided information. However, it may be
\n              mentioned that under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005,
\n              information as available in the form as defined under section
\n              2 (f) of the Act is to be provided. The issue has been
\n              clarified vide this Department’s O. M. No. 11\/2\/2008-IR
\n              dated 10th July 2009. Copy of the OM is enclosed.
\n              Therefore, the charges for number of pages even if sent
\n              through e-mail should be the same as has been prescribed
\n              under fee rules referred above.\n<\/p>\n
       8.     Information has already been provided by the CPIO. The
\n              query in the appeal is out of context of the information
\n              sought in the application.\n<\/p>\n
       9.     Information has already been provided.\n<\/p>\n
       10.    Information is available on the website of this Ministry i.e.
\n              https:\/\/persmin.nic.in.\n<\/p>\n
       5.     Copies of the documents indicated in the letter dated
\n              31.3.2009 of the CPIO are enclosed. The appeal is
\n              disposed of accordingly.”\n<\/p>\n
       CPIO Shri R. K. Girdhar Under Secretary RTI in his letter of the same
\ndate, responding specifically to our complaint notice, has referred to the above
\norders of Appellate Authority of 1.9.09 as disposal of the present complaint. He
\ndoes not, however, address the principal issue in the present complaint, which is
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “That there is no provision to transfer the application under section
\n       6(3) of the RTI Act within the same department. The provisions of
\n       Section 5(5) of the RTI Act would apply in this case. The CPIO has
\n       in this case wrongly forwarded the RTI application within the same
\n       Department.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                            DECISION NOTICE<\/p>\n
       We find that the issues raised by appellant in his original RTI application of
\n11.3.08 stand responded to in the order of 1.9.09 of First Appellate Authority Ms.
\nAnuradha Chagti. If not satisfied with the information now provided, it will be
\nopen to appellant Shri Hemant Goswami to move a second appeal afresh before<\/p>\n
                                         7<\/span>
\n us under sub sec. 3 of Sec. 19 of the RTI Act.          However, on the specific
\ncomplaint before us in the present case, the CPIO has taken no stand. .Sec. 6(3)
\nof the RTI Act reads as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      6(3)
\n      Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an
\n      information,–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (I)     which is held by another public authority; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (ii)    the subject matter of which is more closely connected with
\n             the functions of another public authority, the public authority,
\n             to which such application is made, shall transfer the
\n             application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that
\n             other public authority and inform the applicant immediately
\n             about such transfer:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-
\n      section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later
\n      than five days from the date of receipt of the application. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Under sub sec. (1) of Sec. 6, the RTI Act has already mandated that an
\napplication make application before the CPIO of “the concerned public authority”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In this case, sec. 6(3) can only be operative in case the information sought is not
\nheld by that public authority. Clearly, in the present case, and as admitted by
\nCPIO Shri Ravinder Kumar in his response of 14.3.08, the information sought is
\nindeed held by the DOPT, which is the public authority in question. In this
\nCommission’s Decision in Appeal No. 10\/1\/2005-CIC Er Sarbajit Roy vs. DDA
\nannounced 22.2.’06, we have held that
\n      The DDA is a single public authority. Since this is a matter
\n      concerning adjustments within the same public authority Sec 6 (3)
\n      cannot apply. Accordingly the CPIO Ms. Neemo Dhar, who had
\n      received the request from the complainant, was, as per section 7(1)
\n      of the Act, under obligation to seek information from her colleague
\n      and provide it to the complainant. Her colleague, who was to
\n      provide the information as per Section 5(5) of the RTI ACT, would
\n      become deemed CPIO and expected to provide Ms. Dhar the
\n      information sought by the Complainant.\n<\/p>\n
       The plea of complainant Shri Hemant Goswami that the clause to be
\noperative in the present case was sub sec. (4) of Sec. 5 which has not been<\/p>\n
                                        8<\/span>
\n done leading to the plea for compensation by complainant. The complaint is
\nvalid and, therefore upheld.\n<\/p>\n
       The question, however, arises as to what are the implications of this
\nmisjudgment on the part of CPIO Shri Ravinder Kumar. Does it amount to
\nafflicting ‘loss’ or ‘detriment’ calling for compensation? Under sub sec. (1) of sec.
\n7 of the RTI Act, on receipt of a request u\/s 6 a CPIO is expected to provide a
\nresponse within 30 days of receipt of the request. However, sub sec. 3 of Sec. 6
\nallows for a further 5 days in transferring an application, thus allowing a period of
\n35 days instead of 30 in responding to such an application.            In this case,
\nhowever, as borne out by the order of 1.9.’09 of Appellate Authority Ms.
\nAnuradha Chagti, the applicant was provided information vide CPIO’s letter of
\n31.3.08, which should make it a response even within the limited 30 days allowed
\nfor a response u\/s 7(1). For this reason, appellant’s plea for penalty against then
\nCPIO Shri Ravinder Kumar cannot be maintained nor can the demand for
\ncompensation. While the complaint in the present case is, therefore, allowed, the
\nsubstance of the original application having been addressed, there is no further
\naction required in this matter including cost.\n<\/p>\n
       Announced in the open chamber on this 29th          day of September, 2009.
\nNotice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
(Wajahat Habibullah)
\nChief Information Commissioner
\n29.9.2009<\/p>\n
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
\napplication and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
\nof this Commission.\n<\/p>\n
(Pankaj Shreyaskar)
\nJoint Registrar
\n29.9.2009<\/p>\n
                                          9<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Central Information Commission Shri Hemant Goswami vs Department Of Personnel & … on 29 September, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Complaint No.CIC\/WB\/C\/2008\/00459 dated 1.5.2008 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 18 Appellant – Shri Hemant Goswami Respondent – Department of Personnel & Training.(DoPT) Decision announced: 29.9.2009 Facts : By an application of 11.3.08 Shri Hemant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-162379","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Hemant Goswami vs Department Of Personnel & ... on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Hemant Goswami vs Department Of Personnel & ... on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-14T19:02:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Hemant Goswami vs Department Of Personnel & … on 29 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-14T19:02:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3071,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Shri Hemant Goswami vs Department Of Personnel & ... on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-14T19:02:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Hemant Goswami vs Department Of Personnel & … on 29 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Hemant Goswami vs Department Of Personnel & ... on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Hemant Goswami vs Department Of Personnel & ... on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-14T19:02:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Hemant Goswami vs Department Of Personnel & … on 29 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-14T19:02:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009"},"wordCount":3071,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009","name":"Shri Hemant Goswami vs Department Of Personnel & ... on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-14T19:02:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-hemant-goswami-vs-department-of-personnel-on-29-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Hemant Goswami vs Department Of Personnel & … on 29 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162379","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=162379"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162379\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162379"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162379"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162379"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}